On the other hand there have been extensive studies of children who recall past lifes. If i remember the name of that man ( i believe it was a psychiatrist from some usa university) ill post it.

Ian Stevenson, fwiw.

...tell me what can you prove and I shall post on that.

I can't "prove" anything of the sort. Neither could Sakyamuni evidently. There's a Sutta called " The Safe Bet Sutta" where he suggests to skeptics that the live as if it were true, just to be safe.

But in terms of disproving it, if they are able to start reviving people that have been cryogenicly frozen, that would be fairly persuasive evidence. But I'm a believer, so my understanding would simply have to adapt to accommodate the new data.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

basically, if you believe (as I do) that consciousness is something other than "in your brain" (since consciousness/thoughts can change the brain physically, this seems to be so on some level), it begs the question as to where it goes, or how it transforms when someone dies, the most logical answer actually comports somewhat with modern science, that consciousness transforms based on coming together and falling apart of causes and conditions..which is exactly what happens to pretty much all conditioned things, endless transformation based on causes and conditions. Even in modern physics, things don't just cease being, so asserting that consciousness simply ceases existing can only make sense if your worldview reduces all of existence to the category of physical, and believing that consciousness is just al brain-made illusion.. a view which has a ton of gaping holes of and within itself.

There is no empirical evidence for continuity of consciousness that i'm aware of, but there is also no empirical evidence for many, many things that are likely taken for granted in your worldview. Despite it's claims to the contrary, the modern reductionist worldview is also based mostly on inference..which is funny, because so many claiming to have this worldview will only accept empirical evidence as "proof"...double standard I guess.

P.S. Stop acting like a dick to everyone, if you want to have a conversation that's awesome..but no one needs to defend or prove anything to you.

I see gandy has been busy, posting this all over the internet, at atheist forums and Dhamma Wheel (Theravada) and probably at some other religions' forums too. Here is what I wrote over there:

gandy wrote:so how does buddhism reconcile with this?

Easy. It is called Near Death Experience for a reason. It really isn't death. It is just Near death. No one completely dies and comes back to the same body. That has never happened; according to Buddhism and science.

So gandy is an atheist spreading the Bad News man thats hilarious.Next theyll be going door to door in cheap suits :rofl:

Why is it that some atheists feel the need to proselytize? I know why Christians proselytize; they want to help people by saving them from the lake of fire. I know why Muslims proselytize; there are no infidels in paradise; but why would an atheist feel the need to proselytize? It is just this one life (according to them), who cares if people waster their time in churches, temples, mosques; what concern is it to them?

Because now Atheism doesn't just mean lack of belief in a deity etc.., it often means someone who militantly supports that the status quo of our society in terms of worldview, politics etc. When I read Sam Harris, Dawkins, et al, it often seems like today's version of White Man's Burden..basically the idea is that any ideology which does not support modern, secular values and priorities only ( values which I happen to agree with on a personal level in may places) is engaging in "magical thinking", and is basically primitive and backwards. Dawkins of course even claims that people who don't adopt the orthodox "scientism" in terms of their worldview may have a brain disorder. They even question the value of philosophy.

Nevermind that the fact that this view has all kinds of logical holes, not the least of which is a 20th century full of horrors enabled in part by scientific discovery and it's supposed ethical superiority (not anti science or some luddite by any means, but the implied argument that science is ethically superior to religion is a questionable one). There are a group of "New Athiest" intellectuals out there putting out basically justifications of things continuing just as they are, and blaming all man's problems on religion. it's amazing to me that intelligent people take their pedestrian arguments seriously, but there ya go...i've actually had people threaten me and call me scum for criticizing Sam Harris. They also assumed I was some creationist or something, which is just rich. I would have thought these guys were really cool if they were as active when I was 18 or so, now they just seem so played out to me.

The whole thing is actually reminiscent of ridiculous 50's vision of a world where "progress" has fixed everything, and answered every question.

David N. Snyder wrote:Why is it that some atheists feel the need to proselytize? I know why Christians proselytize; they want to help people by saving them from the lake of fire. I know why Muslims proselytize; there are no infidels in paradise; but why would an atheist feel the need to proselytize? It is just this one life (according to them), who cares if people waster their time in churches, temples, mosques; what concern is it to them?

I think that there is a fundemental insecurity there. The fact that others believe differently makes them doubt their own disbelief. It's easier to convert others than to question one's own (dis)beliefs.